tenho um sério problema, que muito prejudica minha já conturbada comunicação inter de almeida pessoal, que é a curiosidade extrema para saber tudo o que me é interessante. e parte do problema é: tudo me é interessante, desde que apresentado de forma interessante
uma provável questão a ser respondida é: por que o formato do canal rural e esses outros citados torna o conteúdo deles interessante pra você? não sei exatamente qual o público de cada um desses conteúdos todos, mas certamente não sou de nenhum, e eles se esforçam ao máximo para agradá-lo. entre as razões que me fazem vê-los, posso só dizer que o pouco que conheço me intima a imaginar quem são essas pessoas, que consomem esses nichos, além de todos serem feitos bem mais próximos de intenções sinceras e/ou autênticas do que o formato convencional, mesmo que ainda questionáveis, seja tendo ou não dinheiro para fazê-lo
1. Git creates a full repository with this command. With Subversion, you’re just checking out the files in the repository.
2. With each branch, no new files are created in the project file hierarchy on your system. Since you have a full local repository, Git creates the files you need on the fly by processing the recorded changes. With Subversion, you have to create every branch remotely on the server. This can get messy depending on the size of your team. If you decide to control branching to keep things clean, you forfeit the power branching offers.
3. With Git, we only push our work to the server AFTER collaboration (more below). With Subversion, it all hits the server.
4. Again, no file system work. Since we’re using a local repository, we let Git handle the details of removing the branch. With Subversion, you still have the old copy until you update. You either have to clean up manually, or “update” to clean up local and remote copies.
There are literally hundreds of features for both Git and Subversion. While you may have detailed reasons to choose one over the other, I think these 3 high level reasons are strongly convincing in favor of Git. If you have differing opinions, I’d love to hear them.
(…) Linux is what Windows had once promised to be – at least in terms of cross-platform support. In the wake of the PowerPC alliance from IBM, Apple, and Motorola in 1991, Microsoft made a commitment to support Windows NT 3.51 on PowerPC chips. Windows eventually added support for Digital’s Alpha NEC’s and SGI’s MIPS chips. Workstation maker Intergraph ported Windows NT 3.51 to its Clipper chips and said it was creating a port to Sparc chips from Sun. Neither ports saw the light of day.
Windows NT 4.0, which came out in 1996, only supported nothing more than f32-bit x86, Alpha, and MIPS chips, and by the turn of the millennium, only x86 chips were supported. (Interestingly, the PowerPC alliance also lined up IBM’s OS/2 and AIX Unixes – the OS/2 was never delivered – and even Sun Microsystems’ SunOS Unix was slated for the PowerPC chips. IBM also ported its OS/400 minicomputer operating system to the 64-bit variants of PowerPC).
While Microsoft has expanded support to cover Itanium processors – mostly at the urging of Hewlett-Packard, Intel’s Itanium development partner and the one with the most to gain from Windows-on-Itanium for its high-end Integrity servers – Microsoft has not made good on the initial cross-platform promises for Windows server. Microsoft has suffered from this, but not as much as Intel has been helped.